Welcome to Gaia! ::

Ugh, fine. Here's a rather glib response:
Yup, you're right. People need to just make crap up. We need to "imagine" the events that took place and interpret them by "imagining" how they "should" (note the normative approach) apply. Actually, considering how the bible was compiled, it sounds like the bible has already had a lot of that going on for itself.
Basically, the bible is decent joint work of fiction. "Historical" fiction? Well, maybe, but so is a lot of Sima Qian's and other prominent historians' because that is the lens in which we perceive history. Does that mean it doesn't have any value? Nope, on the contrary, fiction (Note: Murakami's "Norwegian Wood") has plenty of insight and value.

Throw in some stuff about theodicy, the indivisibility of religion and its people, and a few sleepless nights and maybe there will be some great "justification of the ways of god to man," but "Paradise Lost" certainly didn't manage to do it.

Oh, and I'm not against religion. I'm just against arguing for religion. It's not really necessary.

that is why you must have faith

I have nothing against a majority of Christians. Most of them are just like everyone else I know. But like all religions it has its faults.
Also, Christians try to convert people more than every other religion (in my personal experience at least). You never see Buddhists or Wiccans coming to your doorstep with pamphlets.

It's not divine. Problem solved. I'd like to see someone argue that it is divine though.

Christianity relies on the bible being either divine word, or divinely inspired. If such is not true, modern Christianity collapses.

By the way, if you are going to take a contrary stance, you should at least have the courtesy of explaining your reasoning.

Actually, no warrant was given for the bible's divinity, so it would be difficult, even unfair, for me to have a concrete response. As far as I can see, all you have said is "Christians think it is." So please have the courtesy of starting off with a well-developed explaination and I will be happy to respond with numerous canned arguments Christians have never been able to fully argue against. Theodicy alone is good enough to remove typical depictions of a god from the picture. If, of course, that does not seem to challenge you, I will be happy to start writing papers on the matter.

You get what you give.

Faith is not an argument. It is an assertion.

If you want to somehow turn faith into a warrant, you need something other than a tagline and assumptions. This is a basic premise to argumentation.

Do not ask me what my purpose is if you have quoted and "responded" to something I have written. That is inviting a response, and thus is the purpose in writing.
I have no tolerance for people who try to argue for things based on faith--I repeat, faith is not an argument. If you want to rely on faith, you should not even be discussing this as the thing to do would be to say, "I have faith, that is all I can say." That, I could respect.

You want me to critique the faith?
1.) It is a faith, thus based on belief--conviction, trust, confidence. This creates two problems. First, beliefs are called what they are because of a lack of factual evidence. Otherwise, it would also be a scientific theory (note: definition of scientific theory is different from a theory) with experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis and also be able to draw conclusions from it. That is why a belief in gravity (the semantics religious people play with) is a misnomer, because you "know" gravity exists. You can see plenty of evidence and mathematical proof. The second problem is that even if we were to take faith as a criterion for evaluating value, we would have to look at each person's moral fiber to decide whether the religion held value. Looking at the general populous, I do no think that is how a religion would like to be evaluated in general.

2. Theodicy. If god is god, he is not good. If god is good, he is not god. Explaining the nature of evil and its existence in the world is a problem theologians constantly grapple with. It is easier in times of peace, but as soon as people encounter hardship, the tone changes.

3. Most Christian religions, take Catholicism for example, are nihilistic. They reject the value of the physical (note: real) world and instead beg the question of a meaning to life by producing this afterlife which, depending on which sect you believe in, will generally ignore most worldly actions. So what is the point? "Nevermind, look a this shiny thing."

4. A religion and its people are inseperable. A religion cannot exist without people because that is where the structure lies for worship and belief. Ironically, this means a god is not necessary to have a religion. In fact, having a god would pose a restriction on the church in a way to cease its evolution. If you look at most monotheist religions over the years, there has been quite a bit of change. So who is right? Have the basic principles of the god suddenly disappeared?

5. Religious assimilation. How much of a Christian religion comes from various other religions? Well if you believe the historical evidence that Yahweh was once a vengeful mountain god, it goes back quite a ways. Makes the idea of a noodle monster somewhat plausible assuming someone digs back far enough. Is this a taint on the religion or what it was meant to be? If it is a taint, religion as we see it today is false. If it is meant to be, then there is an acceptance in the fictionalization of higherpowers in order to create dramatic, awe-inspiring stories to imbue morals. If you go with Durkheim, there is a pure element in each religion if you go back far enough, so how different is the true faith? Let's just say most civilizations, if you go back far enough, had human sacrifices.

Oh the list goes on and on.